TERRORIST VS. TERRORIST

For those who think that we are not being successful in the War on Terror in Iraq, think again. Ralph Peters explains. - Sailor

TERRORIST VS. TERRORIST

By RALPH PETERS
New York Post


March 2, 2005 -- OSAMA bin Laden gets it. The terror-master understands that the campaign of bombings and assassinations has backfired in Iraq, erasing popular support for Islamist fanatics and unleashing the forces of freedom.
So World Terrorist No. 1 sent a message to Regional Terrorist No. 1: We're losing. We need a different strategy.

Osama wants Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to shift his sights from Iraq's population, to help carry the struggle back to American soil. With the old order beginning to crack in the wake of Iraq's elections, bin Laden sees that his last, desperate hope is to hurt America so badly that we quit the fight.

Osama is a strategist. He may not be a very good strategist — he called the after-effects of 9/11 utterly wrong. But he thinks in global terms, in time-frames that look decades into the future and centuries into the past. He's a big-picture guy.

Zarqawi is a hit man. He thinks tactically. Faced with the humiliation of 8 million Iraqis defying his threats and lining up to vote, his instinctive response is to lash out, to punish, to kill without stopping. Monday's bombing in Hilla took 115 Iraqi lives. It was a classic Zarqawi operation.

Osama and Zarqawi are both frustrated by the series of reverses they've suffered. But their perspectives on the Islamist war against modern civilization differ profoundly.

Even in hiding, Osama has managed to build an accurate picture of events in the greater Middle East, where his cause is on the ropes. He's realized that Zarqawi's program of videotaped beheadings, suicide bombings against civilian targets and the assassination of teachers, doctors and local officials hasn't won hearts and minds.



Zarqawi has become a menace to Osama's vision. The new guy on the block is out of control. He's hitting the wrong targets.

Osama is a long way from disavowing Zarqawi — he'd rather use him. But an eventual split could come, if the Jordanian doesn't read between the lines of the big guy's message. Osama wants a change in tactics. Now. Three years ago, people in the Middle East were cheering and naming their babies after him. Now he's losing his star quality.

The people of the Middle East are voting in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, toppling a puppet government in Lebanon, agitating for elections in Egypt — and even casting ballots for municipal representatives in Saudi Arabia. Syria looks shaky and Iran's youthful population wants the mullahs gone. Sunni and Shi'a Muslims may even learn to cooperate.

Whether Osama's sitting in Karachi, in the mountains bordering Afghanistan or even in Iran, he sees that the West is winning. The infidels are turning the heads of the faithful.

It must eat at him like cancer.

Bin Laden knows that his movement can't afford a further hemorrhage of popular support. In his gory way, Zarqawi is becoming a more immediate threat to al Qaeda than America. By killing so many Muslims, Zarqawi has destroyed the folk-hero image of Islamist terrorists, reducing them to nothing but renegade murderers.

Zarqawi may blow Osama off. His resources and interests are regional, not global. He doesn't have the temperament to call off his private war and try again elsewhere. Zarqawi's a gritty, furious field officer who wants to get at the enemy right now. Osama's the general with the broader grasp of events.

Osama's real message to Zarqawi isn't Hit America instead. It's Stop what you're doing, brother.

Our homeland will be hit again. By someone. Sooner or later, the bad guy lands a punch. Meanwhile, we should take heart from the latest evidence — delivered by Osama himself — that the cause of freedom is even more powerful than we thought, that democracy is contagious.

Osama's message to Zarqawi was one of despair — and a tribute to the millions of Arabs who are turning against his kind.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

WHAT SENATOR BYRD DIDN'T SAY:

Here we have some of the real reasons the Dems in the Senate are trying to block the nomination of Bill Pryor. It is all about politics. Quin Hillyer lays out all the reasons why Bill Pryor's nomination should be brought to the Senate floor for an up or down vote and why he is eminently qualified to sit on the Federal Bench. - Sailor

CROSS COUNTRY

Pryor Impressions
Alabamans want to know why Bill Pryor is being filibustered in the Senate.

BY QUIN HILLYER
Thursday, March 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
OpinionJournal.com

MOBILE, Ala.--If judicial nominations represent the spear-point of all of the partisan battles in Washington, former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor is the poison on the spear. Judge Pryor, whose renomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could get a Senate hearing as early as March 9, has become a folk hero to conservatives nationwide while drawing fierce denunciations from liberal editorial pages. Come to Alabama, though, and the cognoscenti from all shades of the political spectrum find the controversy badly misguided.

Here, the Republican Pryor--at age 42, now serving a mere temporary appointment to the 11th Circuit--is the darling not just of right-leaning editorial boards. He enjoys near-universal support even from newspapers that endorsed Al Gore and John Kerry, from elected officials both Democrat and Republican, black and white--and even from the Democrat who Mr. Pryor defeated for attorney general.

The liberal Anniston Star, for instance, in the same editorial that urges filibusters against most of President Bush's nominees, writes that "Pryor, who possesses a brilliant legal mind, cannot be so easily dismissed. . . . Pryor has been proven capable of setting aside his ideology when it matters most. . . . [He] helped shut down [Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments] sideshow and, in the process, displayed personal courage. That alone ought to convince Democrats currently blocking a vote on Pryor to give him a chance."

Why do Alabamians so strongly back Judge Pryor? Because they've seen him in action defending Democratic lawmakers against Republican lawsuits, defying the Republican governor (Fob James) who appointed him, and spending countless hours establishing a youth mentorship program through the attorney general's office. They know him, up close, as a man of integrity and compassion.

National critics have gone to prodigious lengths to muddy that home-state record. Unfairly so. Consider that critics have accused Judge Pryor of being insensitive to women because he successfully argued against one small portion of the Violence Against Women Act. But Judge Pryor's constitutional point was virtually incontrovertible, namely that rape doesn't qualify as "interstate commerce." His goal was to keep authority for prosecuting rapes in state courts, where (in Alabama at least) the juries are likely to be harder on rapists than elsewhere. Meanwhile, he has been praised throughout Alabama by groups that aid victims of domestic violence. Mobile's Penelope House women's shelter even named him to its Law Enforcement Hall of Fame.

The story is similar on every issue on which he has been criticized. Somebody served Sen. Dianne Feinstein poorly, for example, when providing her a quote from Judge Pryor that made it sound like he advocated the Christianization of government. But the quote came from a speech to his alma mater--McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, in Mobile--the point of which was not that the government should be Christian but that Catholics have a duty to be good citizens. (As it turned out, he was citing St. Thomas Aquinas, hardly a great threat to the American order.)

Critics have also accused him of race-based opposition to one portion of the Voting Rights Act. Why, then, is Judge Pryor supported by Alabama's lone black, Democratic congressman, and by its two most prominent black, Democratic legislators, and by its black Democratic National Committeeman? And on the case in question, Judge Pryor was backed by Georgia's black, Democratic AG, Thurbert Baker, who also endorsed Bill Pryor's judicial nomination.

Obviously, there is a disconnect between the interest-group and liberal-media assumption that Southern conservatives, especially Alabama ones, likely have racist tendencies, and the obvious reality of Judge Pryor's genuinely warm relationships with so many of Alabama's black leaders. Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Alabama has indeed come a long way since Bull Connor. Also important is that Judge Pryor's native Mobile, especially its old-line Catholic sector in which he grew up, handled civil rights with far more aplomb than Bull Connor's Birmingham--and with virtually no violence. Early on, then-Mayor Joseph Langan peacefully integrated the city's bus lines. And Bill Pryor's own high school, where his father was band director, integrated comfortably in the '60s, well before he matriculated.

Judge Pryor would say, correctly, that his jurisprudence aims at helping neither victims nor powerful interests, but merely at following precedent and the Constitution. In his closing arguments against the judicial vigilantism of Alabama's then-Chief Justice Roy Moore, he said: "In our system, a judge must follow the final decision of other judges, even when he is convinced they're wrong. . . . The answer this court must provide to every judge in Alabama is that no judge is above the law."

That's why, against his own personal predilections, he refused, as attorney general, to enforce part of a new state law against partial birth abortions: because that section contradicted clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. That's why, against his own predilections, he enforced the very portion of the Voting Rights Act that he and his Georgia Democratic counterpart opposed. And that's why the leader of Alabama's top black, Democratic organization endorsed him as a judge who "will uphold the law without fear or favor," while former Democratic AG Bill Baxley said Judge Pryor always acts "without race, gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or any other competing interest affecting his judgment."

Yes, we in Alabama proudly support Bill Pryor. His career--as public intellectual, successful prosecutor, cultural-bridge-builder and man of conscience even at his own political peril--represents many of the traits the national media has always said Alabama lacks. Until he came along, our most famous exemplar of such character was the fictional Atticus Finch. Now that we can offer a real-life Atticus, we're more than a little angry that the Washington elites want to reject him.

Mr. Hillyer is an editorial writer for the Mobile (Ala.) Register.

Officials: Terror Suspect Had New York Plans

There is no real surprise here. New York City's mass tramsit system has long been a target of terrorists. Sooner or later, there will be an attack in the US. New York City, as always, will be a prime target. - Sailor

Officials: Terror Suspect Had New York Plans
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
FoxNews.com

MADRID, Spain — A suspect in last year's March 11 Madrid train bombings had a sketch and technical details about Grand Central Terminal (search) in New York City but U.S. officials said Wednesday there was no immediate threat to the famous railroad station.

The sketch and data were on a computer disk seized about two weeks after the train bombings that killed 191 people last year, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo first reported.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (search) said in a Wednesday press conference that the information gained did not appear to be part of a grand plan.

"The material has been linked to individual involved in the Madrid bombings," Kelly said. "However, we have no information to indicate that these drawings were part of an operational plan to attack Grand Central station."

The material also included photographs, and a drawing of a private building in the city, which Kelly refused to identify.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (search) said the FBI had informed the Police Department about the existence of the data on the computer and the city responded by tightening security at transit centers.

"We've known about the data on the computer for a long time," said Bloomberg, interviewed on WBLS Radio. "We've taken the appropriate steps 'back when' to beef up security at all of the major transportation hubs — train stations and airports and bus stations, places where you say if a terrorist wanted to attack, they would."

Officials said it's no surprise, however, that terrorists are trying their hardest to hit the United States again.

"We've known for a long time there are a number of targets in the U.S. ... but to have found something in the detail that it exists is a little disturbing," Bill Gavin (search), president of The Gavin Group and former assistant FBI director, told FOX News on Wednesday. "It will certainly heighten everybody's awareness in New York ... it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

Rep. Jane Harman (search), the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, noted that New York City officials, as well as others around the country, have done "huge amounts" of work since Sept. 11 to make sure this country isn't attacked again.

"That's the good news story but the bad news story is, we need to stay prepared and in our view, our homeland security effort is sorely lagging," she said, referring to a lack of an effective national security alert system, among other things.

Harman said there's no longer one central group trying to attack the United States but another type that's far more frightful.

"We do know there's a number of groups now — they're not all Al Qaeda — that are loosely affiliated, a sort of horizontal structure. That's very dangerous, they could cause us harm," Harman said.

"Our operating presumption has to be that they're looking for the best way to do that and we need to be prepared 24-7 and we need to be prepared in the right way."

Gavin, Harman and others said rail, subway and port security have, since the Sept. 11 attacks, been major areas of concern for potential terrorists activity.

"These are just terribly vulnerable spots and they need some real attention and some innovative ways to provide protection to them," Gavin said.

Spanish police turned the disk over to the U.S. agents from the FBI and CIA in December once they understood the scope of the technical data, the report said.

On Wednesday at Grand Central, visible security seemed at its usual high level, with National Guard, machine-gun-toting law enforcers and bomb-sniffing dogs.

"I'm used to this," said Elaine Weaver, a tourist from Bristol, England, who was passing through the terminal. "We're used to bomb scares everywhere. So you're careful but it doesn't deter me."

A U.S. Embassy official confirmed that American law enforcement authorities received information related to Grand Central Terminal from Spanish authorities in December.
A government source confirmed to FOX News that a sketch was passed on by Spanish investigators to the FBI. It was not a photo, or technical drawing, but a single sketch that was so rough it appeared to be Grand Central. The government source added that there is no imminent threat.

There were conflicting descriptions of what the drawing showed. A Spanish police official said it depicted a facade similar to that of Grand Central; New York police said it showed a large interior room off the terminal's main concourse.

The same Spanish official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the sketch was found in the home of Mouhannad Almallah, a Syrian who was arrested in Madrid on March 24 but later released, although he is still considered a suspect.

Almallah was questioned over his alleged ties to two suspects jailed in connection with the attack after witnesses placed them aboard trains targeted in the string of 10 bombs, El Mundo said.

A total of 24 people are in jail over the attack, although at least 40 more who were arrested and released are still considered suspects.

After the Madrid attack, security around New York City's subways and commuter points, such as Grand Central and Penn Station, were ratcheted above the already-high post-9/11 levels.

Peter Kalikow, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said at the time that the chance of a transit attack in New York was "diminished, but possible." He added that if an emergency occurred, "100 guys would show up right away." He refused to disclose exact numbers.

Kalikow also said the MTA's chief of security had been in London at the time of the Spain bombing and was sent to Madrid to observe the situation.

FOX News' Catherine Herridge, Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Exclusive: George Soros Sued Over Dog Attack

Poor George Soros, first he throws away some 23 million dollars trying to defeat Bush. Now he is being sued over his dog biting some one. Ironic isn't it. First Soros trys to get Kerry aka the poodle elected, now this. Guess old Soros has no luck with dogs. - Sailor

Exclusive: George Soros Sued Over Dog Attack
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Managing Editor

March 02, 2005(CNSNews.com) - George Soros, the billionaire liberal financier who spent more than $23 million of his own money trying to defeat President Bush last year, is being sued and could end up having to testify over a dog attack at his estate in Westchester County, N.Y.

Attorneys in the case appear to have made little progress in reaching a financial settlement to the lawsuit that arose out of the April 7, 2004 incident, and the New York Supreme Court for Westchester County has ordered a preliminary conference for March 10, which could lead to depositions and an eventual trial.

The victim, Brian McKean, suffered "two deep wounds in his leg," according to his attorney, Herman Kaufman, and is planning to undergo plastic surgery to cover up a scar left from one of the bites.

McKean was bitten by a black Labrador named Naomi, which had been purchased along with several other dogs by Soros for his son Gregory, according to Kaufman's lawsuit.

Following the attack on McKean, the younger Soros pleaded guilty to violating a local dog ordinance and was fined $250. A transcript of the April 29, 2004 hearing, obtained by Cybercast News Service, indicates that Gregory Soros agreed from that day forward to keep Naomi indoors, penned up or on a leash.

In his Aug. 4, 2004 lawsuit filed in the state supreme court for Westchester County, Kaufman alleged that the Soros dogs had demonstrated "previous vicious tendencies," which "were explicitly known to both" George and Gregory Soros.

Kaufman was referring to the Soros' black Labrador allegedly attacking another individual, who could not be positively identified. While no details of such an attack could be corroborated, Bedford Town Court Judge Kevin Quaranta made reference to multiple attacks during the hearing in which Gregory Soros pleaded guilty to violating the dog ordinance.

"We are dealing with a three strikes and you're out rule," Quaranta warned. "[T]he next time the dog attacks or bites anybody, it must be immediately euthanized."

Kaufman's lawsuit states that McKean, an employee of the home carpeting company, Patterson, Flynn & Martin, was bitten after he was allowed through the front gate and approached the front door of the Soros home to receive directions on finding the building where he was to take carpet measurements.

McKean said two or three dogs raced up and jumped him. Landscapers, working nearby, were able to wave the dogs off McKean, but according to Kaufman, another employee of the Soros family emerged from the house to blame McKean for the incident.

"[She] doesn't ask, 'Are you alright?' She just [says], 'What are you doing here?' And in an accusatory tone," Kaufman said in an interview with Cybercast News Service. Kaufman added that McKean then had to call his own ambulance in order to get to a hospital for treatment. It is unclear whether either George or Gregory Soros was in the house or on the property at the time of the attack.

Kaufman's suit initially requested a total of $6 million in damages from George and Gregory Soros, as a result of McKean's "serious physical injuries, trauma, stress and substantial pain and suffering," according to the complaint. However, the Chubb Insurance Company, which insures Soros' property against liability claims, offered $5,000 to settle the case, Kaufman said.

Kaufman rejected the offer, later countered with $45,000, and then lowered his price again."

I lowered it to 33 (thousand). I heard nothing," Kaufman said, reflecting on his dealings with the White Plains, N.Y., law firm, Eustace & Marquez, which by now was representing the Chubb Insurance Company. "So I called again and called again and called again."

Kaufman said he finally contacted one of the law firm's paralegals, Kathy Patrick. "To me it's an insult that I have to talk to a paralegal," he complained. "I mean I don't have any lack of respect for these people. [But] don't put a paralegal on the phone with me, because they haven't got the authority to do squat.

"Even after he spoke with attorney Diane Miceli from the Eustace & Marquez firm, Kaufman said Miceli and Chubb Insurance Company adjustor Maria Nigro "jerked me around." On Feb. 15, Kaufman filed a motion for "judicial intervention," which was granted. Both sides were ordered to attend the March 10 preliminary conference.

In responding to the lawsuit filed by Kaufman, attorney Diane Miceli denied all of the charges and claimed that McKean's injuries "were caused, in whole or part, by the conduct of the plaintiff." This "culpable conduct" by McKean had to do with him approaching the residence and "assuming the risk under the conditions and circumstances existing," Miceli stated.

When contacted by Cybercast News Service for comment, Miceli said, "No, I really can't talk about that," before demanding to know, "Who contacted you on this?" She concluded by labeling the request for comment "absurd."

Cybercast News Service learned of the legal action following an investigation of New York State public records.

Telephone calls were also placed to Maria Nigro, the Chubb Insurance Company adjustor handling the McKean claim; and John Marwell, the attorney who represented Gregory Soros at his April plea hearing. Neither Nigro nor Marwell returned the calls before press time.

According to the OpenSecrets.org website, which monitors political campaign spending, George Soros donated more money than any other individual to 527 political fundraising committees during the last election campaign. Soros gave $23,450,000 to a variety of liberal groups like the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org. All were expressly dedicated to defeating President Bush.

Bush's Foreign Policy, Larry Summers, Chris Rock

This may come as a shock to some, but the Sailor has voted for the occassional democrat. Ed Koch is one of them. While I did not and still do not agree with many of Koch's stands on issues, he was the best man for the job then. Here are some insightful comments from Ed. - Sailor

Bush's Foreign Policy, Larry Summers, Chris Rock
Edward I. Koch
Thursday, March 3, 2005

During a wide-ranging discussion on last Sunday's "Meet the Press" Tom Friedman and Bill Safire made statements that I believe are particularly insightful.

Bush's Successful Foreign Policy

In discussing the building of democracy in Iraq, Friedman said that "if you have a Democratic Party that is indifferent to it ... that party is not going to be important, in American foreign policy terms." He is absolutely right. Yet most Democrats I talk to, and I talk to lots of them, are preoccupied with denigrating President Bush.

For example, lately these Democrats have been quick to label the President's recent meetings in Europe with Chirac of France, Schroeder of Germany, Putin of Russia and others as a failure. They did the same with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip, which preceded the president's. In both cases, they are dead wrong.


Bush's trip and that of Condoleezza Rice, along with their foreign policy, have been enormous successes. Bush spoke candidly to President Putin of Russia, chiding the apparent backsliding of that country with respect to its acceptance of democratic rule, which requires free elections, a free press and an economy free from government repression.

Bush's candor and courage are being appreciated by more and more commentators. Wherever Bush went he was courted, as was Rice, particularly by Chirac and Schroeder. Both of those European leaders did everything they could to convey to both the president and secretary of state their desire to put the past disagreements on Iraq behind them.

Neither Rice nor Bush, while exhibiting good manners, gave an inch on their beliefs that America's foreign policy on Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Israel and the Palestinian Authority was right and remains U.S. policy.


Friedman, who has not always been supportive of President Bush's war to liberate Iraq, now sees it differently, saying: "We are where we are, and where we are is really important because the war on terrorism ... is a war of ideas. And the only way you win the war of ideas is the people over there – it takes a village – when the people there say, ‘This is shameful what you are doing, this fascism, this jihadism, this suicidism' – and the Iraqi election was the first step toward that, and that's a big deal."

Commentators who have made a hobby of lambasting President Bush are now beginning to praise the free elections in Iraq and the other positive changes taking place throughout the Middle East, including the election scheduled in Lebanon and the prospect of freer and more inclusive elections in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

To the surprise of many, President Bush has been brilliant in foreign affairs. I have said and continue to maintain that I do not agree with him on a single domestic issue, but believe all of those differences are trumped by his willingness to take on international terrorism. I have no regrets in having supported his re-election.

More on Larry Summers Controversy

The second insightful quote on "Meet the Press" came from former New York Times columnist Bill Safire. In discussing the ongoing struggle to end the career of Larry Summers as president of Harvard, Safire said that Summers "exhibited academic freedom in saying something politically incorrect and the roof fell in on him."


The New York Times in its Week in Review section listed Summers' politically incorrect measures:

"What's made Mr. Summers so controversial, said Nicholas Lemann, a Harvard graduate and now the dean of Columbia University's journalism school, is that he's conservative ‘not in his politics, but in the context of the university.' ‘Just about everything he's done that's gotten attention is about a tug to the center,' Mr. Lemann said.

"That is to say, he would like to see R.O.T.C., which was banished from Harvard during the sit-ins of the '60s, restored to campus; he would like to overhaul the core curriculum; he would like to hire who he pleases, regardless of race or sex.

"By being naturally and deliberately provocative, he has challenged campus liberals, which is not what campus liberals are accustomed to. Neil Rudenstine, the previous president, was a former English major devoted to inclusivity. Derek Bok, who preceded Mr. Rudenstine, was an affirmative action proponent, even writing a book after he left office on the merits of race-based preferences.

"In contrast, Mr. Summers has had a series of widely reported confrontations: He rebuked Cornel West, a distinguished professor in the African-American studies department, who promptly decamped to Princeton; he made the suggestion, provoked by a pro-Palestinian faction demanding that Harvard divest itself of stock in companies allied with Israel, that campus anti-Semitism was on the rise; he deplored rampant grade inflation."

I applaud every action Summers took. My fear is that having been burned by experience he will now become too cautious. However, I also believe, as was said by Heraclitis, that "character is fate." With the passage of time, Summers will once again take on the politically correct who, despite their good intentions, are often the enemies of freedom in academia and elsewhere.

My suggestion is that the trustees of Stanford, Princeton and M.I.T., whose presidents denounced Summers for, in effect, taking on the suppressers of inquiry and research, now examine whether or not those three individuals have the integrity and character to hold their positions. The alumni of those three universities should reflect on whether their financial contributions to the endowments of those schools make sense so long as those presidents continue in office.

Chris Rock Crosses the Line

The First Amendment protecting speech is our singular treasure. When a speaker becomes vulgar, intemperate and panders to the worst in us, those present have an obligation to stand up and make their disagreement known. That is how I felt when Chris Rock in his Academy Awards monologue went into an extended rant and, in effect, described President George W. Bush as a moron because of the U.S. war against Iraq. His foolish and not very funny parody included the offending comment: "People are dying. A thousand Gap employees are dead. That's right. Bleeding all over the khakis."

I was in my living room. However, some of the hundreds if not thousands present in the hall could have stood up and protested, but not one person did so. Instead, the Hollywood crowd cheered and applauded their assent to the remarks. How sad when they all, just a few minutes later, also applauded Rock for professing his support for our troops in Iraq, support which sounded awfully shallow after his tasteless crack mocking the dead. Was no one listening? Did no one care?

Edward I. Koch, author, lawyer and talk radio host, was a member of the U.S. Congress and, for 12 years, the 105th mayor of New York City.

MORE THOUGHTS ON KERRY, DOWD, AND THAT PESKY 180:

Bevans over at RCP adds some more on Kerry, Dowd and that SF-180. My friend over at American Dinosaur will enjoy this! -Sailor

Wednesday, March 2 2005
MORE THOUGHTS ON KERRY, DOWD, AND THAT PESKY 180:
Real Clear Politics

Mickey Kaus has been on the Form 180 story for a while, speculating that it could be the linchpin of a strategy among anti-Kerry Dems to keep him out of the 2008 Presidential race. As usual, I think Mickey is on to something.

Here's a further thought: Jerome Corsi (co-author of Unfit For Command) has said he's thinking about moving to Massachusetts and challenging Kerry in 2008. It's probably safe to say that pigs will take flight before Corsi wins in Massachusetts, regardless of whether Kerry signs Form 180 or not.

But if Kerry continues to stonewall and obfuscate, a primary challenge by a young, ambitious Massachusetts Democrat in 2008 could be a slightly different matter...

In a related post, Tom Maguire explains how the Democrats could reap a benefit if Kerry would just take one for the team and sign the form. Maguire is right when he says that whatever information is contained in Kerry's military records (like a dishonorable discharge that was upgraded years later) is unlikely to be so damaging as to cripple his Senate reelection bid.Personally, now that Kerry lost the election I don't really care what is in his files. That said, I still think it is an absolute outrage that this man ran for president using his military service as the cornerstone of his candidacy and the media didn't bother to require him to provide full and complete access to his records. That is a courtesy we've not seen the media extend to other presidential candidates, nor does it comport with their supposed desire to "inform the public." And now the issue is about whether John Kerry is going to be held to his repeated public promises (ones he certainly did not have to make at this point) to fully release his records by signing Form 180.

Finally, a question for Maureen Dowd: IF there is something damaging in Kerry's military records, and IF Karl Rove is as evil and underhanded as you say, and IF Bush has been creating a "Potemkin press" that includes right-wing ringers like Jeff Gannon who are used to disseminate slime and sludge leaked from the administration, and IF the Bushies are so desperately craven they will do anything to retain power, IF all of these things are true then why have John Kerry's military records remained safely private this entire time? Just asking.

A $64 THOUSAND DOLLAR QUESTION:
You'll never guess who said this:

"America has done more good for the rest of the world than any other society. The single biggest gift that America has shared with the impoverished billions on our planet is hope.

At the end of the Cold War, America made an awesome strategic error: It decided to behave like an ordinary country. There is nothing inherently wrong with behaving like an ordinary country, especially a peaceful ordinary country. The only problem is that, over the course of 200 years, America had succeeded in convincing mankind that it was an extraordinary country."

Bill Kristol? Nope. Charles Krauthammer or Paul Wolfowitz? No and no. Try Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former Ambassador to the United Nations. There's more to the interview worth reading.

A BIAS I'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE:
This is remarkable. Today's Louisville Courier-Journal runs an op-ed by Harry Binswanger from the Ayn Rand Institute viciously attacking the Ten Commandments:

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."
As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical.

Binswanger goes on to conclude, as only a true disciple of Rand's objectivism could, that the Ten Commandments are "the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society."

The Courier Journal has every right to publish this piece, though I think it's safe to say that most of their readers (if not most Kentuckians) will find Binswanger's views to be quite distasteful if not outright offensive. So why did they do it? The answer lies in the final sentence of the attribution:

The writer is a member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org) and teaches philosophy at ARI's Objectivist Graduate Center. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand -- best-selling author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and originator of the philosophy she called "Objectivism." She is a particular favorite of Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher.

At this point do we even need to point out that Governor Fletcher is a Republican? I didn't think so. - T. Bevan 10:32 am
Link Email Send to a Friend

Republican revolution among Jews

Looks like another of the democrat core groups is seeing the light. Howie (Dr. Demento) Dean is going to have his hands full trying to stop the bleeding. Of course, if Howie keeps makes little comments like the racist one he made a couple of weeks ago, there will be no way to stop the bleeding. - Sailor

Los Angeles Daily News
Republican revolution among Jews
By Bridget Johnson
Columnist


Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - On a recent rainy Sunday night, I added my umbrella to the stack outside the door of a Woodland Hills home and crept into the parlor to witness one small step in a revolution.

Larry Greenfield, director of the 3,000-member strong Republican Jewish Coalition of Southern California, canvassed the Southland before the last presidential election, speaking to audiences and participating in debates -- including single-handedly taking on Zev Yaroslavsky and Rep. Brad Sherman at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino.

But after President Bush kept the White House, Greenfield wasn't ready to rest. Feeding off momentum from a jump in the Jewish vote for Bush over four years from 19 percent to 25 percent -- a stat Greenfield finds, for lack of a better term, conservative -- the regional RJC director went back out into the community.

The parlor speech in Woodland Hills is shorter than his usual stump -- "GOP: Party of Liberty" -- but the mostly Russian crowd is paying rapt attention to Greenfield. The Encino native clutches a hand-scrawled sheet of notes in his hand, though his facts seem committed to memory; he's itching to tell these folks why Jews should go GOP, and the reasons roll off his tongue.

The Democratic Party, he tells the group, is no longer that of JFK but of Teddy Kennedy. Bush has gone on the offensive against terrorists. Pakistan is cooperating; Libya's WMDs have bitten the dust. Bush is driving the spread of democracy that is vital to the survival of the West and Israel.

Exit polls being what they are, Greenfield believes the Jewish vote was closer to 30 percent for Bush. He also eyes a much higher goal for 2008, which accounts for his hectic schedule and late nights at the RJC's Westside office.

The national RJC, happy that Bush is comfortably ensconced in another term, has also moved on to new goals, like taking new Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean to task for his statements on Israel in a current ad campaign.

As a gentile observer of this movement, I find that the most refreshing thing for Republicans sick of the GOP stereotype -- namely, rich WASP men -- is also the most worrisome thing for a Democratic Party that has counted on certain demographics to carry its agenda. Back in 1992, when the Jewish GOP vote was only about 11 percent, it was safer for Dems to assume Jewish support. But that firm backing is eroding with each election as a younger generation of Jews goes to the polls and some older Jews take a leap of Republican faith.

I also see that not only are radical Islamists ready and willing to die for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, and Palestinian schoolchildren taught that Israel doesn't exist, but the insidious disease of anti-Semitism is once again creeping into the mainstream -- and not just in always-on-the-fringe France.

New York-based documentarian Evan Coyne Maloney chronicled some of this growing sentiment in his short film "Peace, Love and Anti-Semitism?" American war protesters tell Maloney about their disdain to outright hatred of Israel and Jews; "Israel is a death knell for many Jewish people," one calmly tells the filmmaker, an Arafat-esque scarf draped around his neck. Another man says that Israel should be "phased out" and the Jews redistributed. "I think they could be relocated," the peace protester says. "I've heard Madagascar mentioned several times." Maloney is quick to point out that it was the Nazis who mentioned Madagascar several times before forgoing that plan in favor of extermination.

So, in these especially troubling times, it's telling that so many Israelis support Bush. But will American Jews follow suit?

Greenfield sees Republican and Jew as completely harmonious terms. "The pre-eminent Jewish political value is liberty and the pre-eminent American value is liberty, and today Israel and America are confident brothers in the battle against Islamofascism," he told me.

Back at the Woodland Hills parlor meeting, the speeches are done and people are leaving. A woman pauses by me, her hand clutching a roll of informational papers left on a table for attendees to scoop up. On the outside is a voter registration card.

Maybe, just maybe, Greenfield scored a political convert this night. Something tells me that just one would make giving up his Sunday night and venturing out into the storm worth it.

Bridget Johnson writes for the Daily News. Write to her at bridget.johnson@dailynews.com.

A Couple of Editorials on the Mid East Happenings

Be warned...do not have food or drink in your mouth when you read the second editorial from...GASP...the New York Times! - Sailor

ABOUT THAT QUAGMIRE
New York Post
Editorial
March 2, 2005 -- TIMES WATCH

It's amazing: The New York Times editorial page yesterday had something positive to say about the present occupant of the White House.

Not President Bush by name, of course. That would be going too far.

But the paper of record acknowledged "truly astonishing" things are happening in the Middle East — noting dryly that "the Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances."

The paper — which has bitterly opposed Bush policy in the greater Middle East both in its opinion pages and its news columns — even conceded "there could have been no democratic elections [in Iraq] this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power."

The Times could say the same about the Afghan elections; apparent progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations; Hosni Mubarak's decision to liberalize Egyptian politics and the Lebanese demonstrations — though it chose not to.

There are no guarantees that any of the remarkable events now unfolding in the greater Middle East will lead to anything beyond more heartbreak and bloodshed.



But it's also true that none of it would have happened if Bush had toed the Times' foreign-policy line since taking office.

It was only a month ago that the Times editorial page was decrying Bush's "shortsighted hands-off policy in the Middle East" and expressing sympathy with the view that "America doesn't give a whit about whether the Palestinians ever get their own state."

Last fall, the paper accused the president of just "standing by waiting for a new, less compromised Palestinian leadership to somehow emerge miraculously to replace" Yasser Arafat.

That, said the Times, "is not a policy. It is an abdication of leadership that costs Israeli and Palestinian lives, deepens mistrust and makes an eventual peace that much harder to achieve."

Now, it turns out, that policy — and that's exactly what it was — enabled the Palestinians to understand that a "new, less compromised leadership" post-Arafat was their only chance to achieve their political objectives.

The Times blithely waved off the belief of both Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Arafat was not a genuine partner for peace — that, said the paper three months ago, was merely a convenient "excuse" to justify "abandonment of the peace process."

Bush, it said, had "failed" when it came to showing "American leadership."

Not surprisingly, the paper's position echoed what was once pushed by the new chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean. As a presidential candidate, Dean demanded that America "not take sides in the Middle East" and show more "even-handedness."

Last November, the Times bemoaned the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, calling her "a loyal servant of Mr. Bush's agenda and worldview."

That agenda, of course, was the declaration of the cause of Middle East democracy — something the Times yesterday conceded was "bold" and foresighted.

As the paper noted: "Few in the West thought it had any realistic chance."

Including, of course, the Times itself.

The Times being the Times, it couldn't resist taking a shot at President Bush even while patting him on the back.

"Washington's challenge," it wrote, "now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace."

Actually, we trust the president to stay the course on which he already has so skillfully set out and which is producing such earth-shaking results.

But if George W. Bush wants to indulge in a "triumphalist embrace" or two along the way, what's wrong with that?

He's certainly earned the right.



EDITORIAL
Mideast Climate Change
New York Times
Published: March 1, 2005

It's not even spring yet, but a long-frozen political order seems to be cracking all over the Middle East. Cautious hopes for something new and better are stirring along the Tigris and the Nile, the elegant boulevards of Beirut, and the impoverished towns of the Gaza Strip. It is far too soon for any certainties about ultimate outcomes. In Iraq, a brutal insurgency still competes for headlines with post-election democratic maneuvering. Yesterday a suicide bomber plowed into a crowd of Iraqi police and Army recruits, killing at least 122 people - the largest death toll in a single such bombing since the American invasion nearly two years ago. And the Palestinian terrorists who blew up a Tel Aviv nightclub last Friday underscored the continuing fragility of what has now been almost two months of steady political and diplomatic progress between Israelis and Palestinians.

Still, this has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. Washington's challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.

Lebanon's political reawakening took a significant new turn yesterday when popular protests brought down the pro-Syrian government of Prime Minister Omar Karami. Syria's occupation of Lebanon, nearly three decades long, started tottering after the Feb. 14 assassination of the country's leading independent politician, the former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

If Damascus had a hand in this murder, as many Lebanese suspect, it had a boomerang effect on Lebanon's politics. Instead of intimidating critics of Syria's dominant role, it inflamed them. To stem the growing backlash over the Hariri murder, last week Syria announced its intentions to pull back its occupation forces to a region near the border - although without offering any firm timetable. Yesterday, with protests continuing, the pro-Syrian cabinet resigned. Washington, in an unusual alliance with France, continues to press for full compliance with the Security Council's demand for an early and complete Syrian withdrawal. That needs to happen promptly. Once Syria is gone, Hezbollah, which has engaged in international terrorism under Syrian protection, must either confine itself to peaceful political activity or be shut down.

Last weekend's surprise announcement of plans to hold at least nominally competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic, although many of the specific details seem likely to be disappointing. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.

To be realistic, Egypt isn't likely to see one this year either. For all his talk of opening up the process, President Hosni Mubarak, 76, is likely to make sure that no threatening candidates emerge to deny him a fifth six-year term. But after seeing more than eight million Iraqis choose their leaders in January, Egypt's voters, and its increasingly courageous opposition movement, will no longer retreat into sullen hopelessness so readily. The Bush administration has helped foster that feeling of hope for a democratic future by keeping the pressure on Mr. Mubarak. But the real heroes are on-the-ground patriots like Ayman Nour, who founded a new party aptly named Tomorrow last October and is now in jail. If Mr. Mubarak truly wants more open politics, he should free Mr. Nour promptly.

It is similarly encouraging that the terrorists who attacked a Tel Aviv nightclub on Friday, killing five Israelis, have not yet managed to completely scuttle the new peace dynamic between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel contends that those terrorists were sponsored by Syria, but its soldiers reported discovering an explosives-filled car in the West Bank yesterday. The good news is that the leaders on both sides did not instantly retreat to familiar corners in angry rejectionism. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, have proved they can work together to thwart terrorism and deny terrorists an instant veto over progress toward a negotiated peace.

Over the past two decades, as democracies replaced police states across Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America, and a new economic dynamism lifted hundreds of millions of eastern and southern Asia out of poverty and into the middle class, the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to hopelessness or barely contained rage. The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice.

BYRD COMPARES REPUBLICANS TO NAZIS ON SENATE FLOOR

Robert (KKK) Byrd is at it again. This time calling Republicans Nazis. When will some one call this racist to taks on his wretched behavior? - Sailor

War Blog
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com March 2, 2005
BYRD COMPARES REPUBLICANS TO NAZIS ON SENATE FLOOR

Senator Robert Byrd, defending the minority's right to filibuster on the Senate floor today, wound up his speech by comparing Republican efforts to eliminate the hijacking of the Senate on the Constitutional duty of confirming federal judges to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Not only did Byrd imply that the GOP equates to the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, he's so proud of doing so he's posted the speech to his own website:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Let's stop the history lesson here for a moment. By the time the Enabling Law came up for a vote, the SA (Brownshirts) had effectively terrorized the Reichstag into giving Hitler everything he wanted. Hitler did not come to power through purely democratic means, nor did he care all that much about the sheen of legality. His SA by that time numbered into the millions, and they had already blazed a trail of violent chaos, attacking all of their political opponents, assassinating a number of them; that's how the Nazis came to power. So when Byrd speaks about how the Nazis used legal means to secure their dictatorship, rest assured that the Senator takes that completely out of the context in which it occurred.

More important is the disgusting and deranged implication of death camps and genocide towards Byrd's political opponents just because they propose to change the Senate's rules -- not laws, just the internal rules -- to allow for majority rule on one particular task. Perhaps this point eludes someone who spent the Nazi years belonging to a group that paralleled the same racial philosophies of Hitler himself, but Byrd should know better than to demean the millions of victims of the real Nazis by invoking them as an insult to people who simply oppose Byrd politically.

Byrd, with his attempted filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the last person who should be standing in the well of the Senate, calling anyone a Nazi. Why the Democrats have defended this doddering old embarassment for decades is beyond any explanation but the most base and cynical: he votes the right way. Republicans shunned Trent Lott for waxing nostalgic for an old Dixiecrat on his birthday. Will the Democrats do the same for the lunatic who has befouled the political environment with this intellectually, morally, and historically bankrupt foolishness?

Don't bet on it. It takes strength of character to hold your allies accountable, and so far, the Democrats haven't shown an ounce of it. Even their own party chair goes around proclaiming his "hate" for Republicans, who comprise at least 35% of all registered American voters. With "leadership" like this, we can expect the Democrats to dissolve into a parody of a political party, tossing around insults instead of ideas and lies instead of truth. (via Hugh Hewitt)

UPDATE: A complete fisking of Byrd's insanity can be found at Radioblogger.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/

Senate Getting Away with Murder

Doc Farmer keeps up his relentless efforts to see that John Kerry is brought to justice. - Sailor

Senate Getting Away with Murder
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, March 02, 2005


Last year's presidential campaign was quite the circus. Claims
and counterclaims, truth and lies, yelling and (in one candidate's case) screaming were the steady diet America was force-fed by the lib/dem/soc/commie media. Charges were made against President Bush regarding his service in the 70s; charges which he answered, but which answers the media generally ignored in favor of trying to smear a candidate they didn't like. Well, nobody said politics was pretty.

Yet, despite all of the angst, the election went off pretty smoothly. Oh, there were the usual cries of "disenfranchisement" from those who feel that votes were not counted for the dead (or, for the more PC of you, the "vitally challenged"), felons ("judicially misunderstood"), house pets ("animal companions"), plants ("vegetatively amplified") or morons ("Robert Byrd").


Even now, there are still cliques of the dendritically challenged who lurk in the shadows of DemocraticUnderground.com, complaining that "we wuz robbed" - although in much fouler language than that. They argue that Dubya never released all of his military records (when in fact he did), believing that Karl Rove forged those 60 Minutes documents, and certain beyond any doubt that Condi Rice is, in fact, The Matrix. The rest of us have pretty much gotten on with our lives, however.

That may not be such a good idea, however. There is still one bit of unfinished business that cannot, must not, be forgotten or set aside. The fact is, we've got a criminal who damn near became our President and our Commander in Chief. A crook even darker and lower than Richard Milhouse Nixon at his worst. A man who, even today, strolls
the corridors of power unscathed and intact.

John Forbes Kerry.

Last year, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) put forward some rather strong accusations against Mr. Kerry. Accusations that they backed up with affidavits and evidence. They charged that Kerry provided aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. That he met with enemy officials in Paris, at least twice, while still an officer in the U.S. Navy. That he made false and slanderous accusations against U.S. troops, coining the phrase "babykiller" into America's lexicon. That he lied about certain actions while in Vietnam, causing him to obtain by falsehood at least two of his medals. That he abandoned his shipmates in order to not only put his own power ahead of his duty, but to assist our enemies in the process. That his anti-war, no, his pro-enemy stance following his return to the
United States caused the continued suffering, torture and in some cases death of U.S. Prisoners of War in enemy captivity: that his pressure to leave Vietnam prematurely makes him complicit in the deaths of over one million South Vietnamese, and over three million Cambodians.

That Kerry was, and remains, a traitor.

The fact that Kerry (thankfully) lost the election does not mitigate his crimes, nor does it excuse his behavior. And yet, there has been NO action from the US Department of Justice. No Grand Jury has been convened to examine the evidence of his actions during and after Vietnam. No indictment has been proffered to any Federal Court. No order has been drafted by any judge to unseal the 18 boxes of classified documents currently gathering dust in an FBI cupboard.
Nor has any action been taken to obtain Kerry's FULL military record. Kerry "promised" on Meet The Press back in January that he would sign the Standard Form 180, which would release all of his records. To this date, he has not done this. I don't believe he will, either. Why? Because he is a liar. He is a coward. He is a traitor. He is an enemy of the United States of America.

Yet, for some unfathomable and obscene reason, he is still a Senator. One of 100 of our (supposedly) most distinguished legislators.

Why has there been no action? The
election is over. There would not be any harm to our Republic in taking this man to court. Indeed, there is great harm in allowing a scumbag such as Kerry to remain in office, and at large, by ignoring these accusations and the evidence that backs them up. It sends a signal that if you're in high office, you can get away with anything. I thought we had learned our lesson after Clinton's impeachment. Apparently, I was wrong.

Last year, I called upon the Justice Department to take action against Kerry. Their silence has been deep, profound, and disturbing. The Swift Vets made the same call. So did over 190,000 Americans who signed an online petition requesting that the Justice Department actually live up to its name. I also called upon the Senate to investigate Kerry's continued membership, quoting the fact that under Article XIV, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Now, I know that the Senate (and, for that matter, the House) spends most of their time treating the Constitution like so much recycled toilet paper, and always at our expense. However, it is unconscionable for them to willfully ignore a traitor in their midst.

Therefore, I ask those of you reading this article, especially those who supported the SwiftVets, to take action today. Contact your Senators and DEMAND that they expel Kerry under the above-mentioned Constitutional article. Contact your local or regional Federal Prosecutor's office and DEMAND
that they open an investigation on Kerry for the crimes and specifications he has been accused of by me, by the SwiftVets and by his own words. Contact Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and DEMAND that he get off his duff and act on this issue with alacrity.

And finally, contact President Bush and DEMAND that he take the gloves off. The election is over. Making nice-nice with a scum-bucket like Kerry may have been a political necessity in 2004, but it's 2005 now. By failing to act on these accusations, or by blocking the investigation or prosecution, Bush would be neglecting his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. Further, he would be in direct violation of his oath of office, which states that he preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The time for being nice, or being statesmanlike, is over Mr. President. It's time
for you to do your job.


About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=13350

Semper Fi

Here is more on 2nd Lt. Pantano. His actions in Iraq were duly investigated and he was found to have acted properly by his on scene commanders. Sign the petition to stop this Article 32 investigation. - Sailor

Issues & Insights
Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Semper Fi
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Editorial

Military Justice: After watching the terrorist attack of 9-11, a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War put a promising future on hold to once again put his life on the line for a country that may soon put him on trial for murder.

Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario G. Pantano, who grew up in Hell's Kitchen, returned from Desert Storm a hero. But after 9-11, he wanted to re-up. Friends argued that the 33-year-old married father of two had done his duty. But instead of watching Operation Iraqi Freedom from his den, Pantano entered the Marine training school in Quantico, Va.

Last April 15, his platoon raided a house south of Baghdad and found mortar aiming stakes, three AK-47s, 10 AK magazines and bomb-making material. Two suspected terrorists emerged from the house, got into an SUV and tried to flee. Pantano and his comrades shot out the tires, disabling the vehicle, and ordered the occupants to search the vehicle in case it was booby-trapped.

When the suspects unexpectedly turned and tried to rush Pantano and his men, he ordered them in Arabic to stop, not once, but twice, according to a Navy corpsman in Pantano's platoon in a sworn statement. They didn't, and Pantano, deciding in that split second that his life and the lives of his men were in danger, fired and killed them.

After a full investigation, Pantano's superiors decided he acted properly under the circumstances, and returned him to his combat duties for another three months. But on returning to Camp Lejeune with the full expectation of going back to Iraq to serve his country, he found that a lone Marine sergeant under his command was suddenly telling a different version of events, one that would lead to charges of premeditated murder.

Pantano was being accused, months after the event, of shooting the Iraqis in the back, leaving their bodies out in the open and putting a mocking sign on them to send a message. The charge was deemed sufficient to convene an Article 32 pretrial hearing, the military's equivalent of a grand jury. If the case proceeds to trial, and Pantano is found guilty, he could face the death penalty.

As far as is known, there's no evidence other than the sergeant's charge. As far as any outsider can tell, Pantano acted in good faith in a life-threatening situation in an environment where a seemingly innocent street vendor pushing a cart might be the last thing you see.

But after Abu Ghraib, and amid charges of torture as official U.S. policy at Guantanamo, fears that Pantano might be allowed to become a scapegoat to appease U.S. critics are not unfounded.

It's hard enough to recruit those "few good men" without sending a message that if you put your life on the line for your country and do your duty to the best of your ability, your reward could be a murder charge. Lt. Pantano faced a death sentence every day in Iraq. He was faithful to us, and we should be faithful to him.

PLAYING HARDBALL WITH MAUREEN DOWD

Bevans, over at RCP, takes a shot at Maureen Dowd and the poodle. - Sailor

Tuesday, March 1 2005
Real Clear Politics
PLAYING HARDBALL WITH MAUREEN DOWD:

Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday was full of the usual hyperbole and ridiculousness, but one phrase in particular stood out:

"This White House seems to prefer softball questions from a self-advertised male escort with a fake name to hardball questions from journalists with real names..."

I'm confused. Every day Scott McLellan steps into a room filled with big-name journalists - some, like the now-retired Helen Thomas, with political leanings every bit as far to the left as Gannon's were to the right - who ask their "hardball questions." It may be a bit of an overstatement to say the White House press room is a hostile environment, but it certainly isn't a Bush-friendly one.

Dowd's remark brought to mind a recent observation made by Thomas Sowell that "media bias does not consist in having liberal or conservative opinions but in how you do your job -- or don't do it."

Sowell went on to outline the most egregious case of softball journalism we've seen in a while (of which Ms. Dowd and her well-respected paper played a big part): the pass given to John Kerry for not fully releasing his military records.

Here is how the game of softball has been played. In April of last year, Tim Russert asked Senator Kerry about releasing his military records:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you agree to release all your military records?
SEN. KERRY: I have. I've shown them--they're available to you to come and look at.
MR. RUSSERT: But you'll make all your records public.
SEN. KERRY: They are. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them.

Both of these responses were demonstrably untrue. Yet Kerry was never called to account on these falsehoods by members of the press, nor was he pressured into signing Form 180 (the document that gives the government permission to release all military records to the public) even after the Swift Boat Veterans raised questions about about Kerry's service later in the year.

On January 30, 2005 Kerry pledged on national television he would sign Form 180:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn't been appropriate..
MR. RUSSERT: So they should sign Form 180s for themselves as well?
SEN. KERRY: You bet.

What you didn't see reported by the "journalists with real names" is that the day after Kerry appeared on Meet the Press and called for "those who have challenged me" to release their records, John O'Neill executed a Form 180 and released it to the media authorizing the "total voluntary release of all records to anyone interested" (click here to enlarge image):




Jerome Corsi, the co-author of Unfit For Command, did not serve in the military and thus has no records to release. Senator Kerry's office didn't return phone calls asking for the names of other people Kerry would like to see release records.
But the point is moot. On February 7 Senator Kerry not only repeated his pledge to sign Form 180, he said he would do so irrespective of whether others released their records. "I’ll sign it anyway" Kerry told radio show host Don Imus.

Kerry has been stalling for more than a month now, using the canard that he needs extra time to get things "clarified with the military." Not a single "journalist" has thought to question this patently bogus excuse. Executing Form 180 is so simple even a witless columnist from the New York Times could do it in less than 10 minutes.

What conclusions can we draw from all of this? First, Kerry's unwillingness to sign Form 180 means it most likely contains damaging and/or embarrassing information. Second, it is inconceivable that the mainstream press would stand for such behavior if John Kerry was a Republican. Anyone who can't admit that is fool or a liar (or both).

And last but not least, we can safely conclude that Maureen Dowd doesn't know the difference between hardball and softball. - T. Bevan 2:32 pm Link Email Send to a Friend

Stop Charges Against Ilario Pantano and our Soldiers

Stop Charges Against Ilario Pantano and our Soldiers

The Sailor has signed, what are you waiting for? - Sailor
Sign the Petition

A platoon commander with the U.S. Marine Corp, Second Lt. Ilario G. Pantano, has been charged with two counts of premeditated murder for shooting two Iraqi men in the Sunni Triangle, and if found guilty, he would face the death penalty. According to reports, on April 15, 2004, Lt. Pantano's unit was dispatched to a very dangerous area of the Sunni Triangle after they were given details by captured terrorists about a supply of weapons and terrorist hideouts. Lt. Pantano and his men conducted the search, which revealed bomb-making equipment, weapons, ammunition, and mortar equipment. The Marines were removing the equipment when two Iraqis tried to flee in an SUV. The Marines stopped the SUV and then apprehended the two Iraqis. During a search of the SUV, the Iraqis , began to move quickly toward Lt. Pantano and they were speaking in Arabic. Lt. Pantano yelled at them to 'stop' in both English and Arabic yet the two men continued to advance. Knowing that booby-trapped suicide bombers run rampant in Iraq, Lt. Pantano had to make a split-second decision with respect to his life and the lives of his men. He opened fired and killed the two Iraqis. This is, afterall, war, and decisions like this have to be made on a daily basis.

Now that charges have been brought against Mr. Pantano, his reputation is now shattered and he may be put to death because of left-wing "political correctness" during a time of war. Because of this, every soldier, every Marine, will now hesitate to fight because they are now second-guessing their decisions – decisions that they have been trained to make by our military. It is ironic that the organization that trained Lt. Pantano to fight the enemy is the very one that can take his life for doing so. This is absurd and this "treason" by our own government, our own people, our own military, against our soldiers who are fighting and dying each and every day for our freedoms and the freedoms of the world must stop NOW. It is time for the President of the United States, President George W. Bush – a man who put our men in harms way; a President who says that he supports and is behind our military – to put his reputation on the line and put an end to these charges as well as all other charges of murder and indecencies, against our brave soldiers. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, should do the same, in spite of what may happen to him or his career. According to Mr. Gittins (Lt. Pantano's attorney), the President of the United States can stop this atrocity today! It is time for our government to stand up for all of our brave men and women who are defending this great country of the United States of America. If you agree, please sign the petition below. The petition will be submitted to President Bush and as many Congressmen as possible on March 1, 2005.

Ilario Pantano: This Marine Needs Your Help

Some one want to explain to the Sailor what in hell the Marine Corps is thinking here? Lt. Pantano acted correctly in this matter, based on the evidence presented to date. You can bet your last dollar, that this Sailor, faces with the same situation, would have done exactly the same thing. It is time the Article 32 is dropped and dropped fast! - Sailor

Ilario Pantano: This Marine Needs Your Help
-->Written by Alan Caruba
Sunday, February 27, 2005
SOURCE


I served long ago in a peacetime, Cold War army, but my training in the combat arts and the skill-sets necessary to stay alive probably didn’t differ that much from that which Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano received. No, in fact, his training was probably better. Marines exist for one purpose. They are not peacekeepers. They are true warriors. They are the ones sent first to where the fighting will be the worst. They know it. They volunteer for it.

On April 15, 2004, the Lieutenant and his patrol were on duty in Iraq’s violence-filled Sunni Triangle. That date had been proceeded by days of ambushes and near misses. Indeed, April 2004 marked the assault on Fallujah with considerable action in Najaf and Sadr City. As the Washington Times pointed out, “About one-third of the 147 US servicemen killed that month were Marines. They were killed in firefights and ambushes, and risked explosive devices in the streets.”

It is unlikely that more than a few reading this have ever seen such street-to-street, house-to-house combat. It requires a level of courage most of us will never be required to summon in our entire lives. The wrong decision can get you dead. It can get the men under your command dead.

Last month, a friend shared an email with me from Damon Chapman, the brother-in-law of 2nd Lt. Pantano. He called him “the most honorable man I have ever known.” The Marine Corps has charged him with the premeditated killing of two Iraqi insurgents based on a complaint, two months after the event, by a sergeant in his unit who had reportedly been admonished on several occasions by the Lieutenant.

The man now facing the death penalty had graduated from an elite private school and elected to delay his college education and instead enlist in the Marine Corps to fight in the first Gulf War against Iraq. When he returned home, he worked days to put himself through school at night. As Chapman notes, “He was in the middle of a successful career when, after 9-11, he decided to rejoin the Marines and, despite his age, he completed Officers Candidate School. He led his command bravely and honorably and now, ten months later, it is incomprehensible that he has been charged with this crime while just doing his job.”

A pretrial hearing will be held this spring and Lt. Pantano has made no public statement regarding the charge. Already, though, many are calling for those charges to be dismissed.

What would you have done? The two Iraqis were stopped as they attempted to flee a site that was found to be filled with several mortar aiming stakes, a flare gun, three AK rifles, 10 AK magazines with assault vests, and materials for the manufacture of improvised explosive devices. Lt. Pantano ordered the two men to search their vehicle to insure it was not booby-trapped. At some point both men, ignoring an order to be quiet, and then an order in Arabic to stop, moved swiftly in his direction. He shot them both. I would have done the same thing.
Our soldiers and Marines are not facing an enemy that wears uniforms and attacks in formation. Even today, as a military convoy makes its way on the streets and highways of Iraq, those guarding it will fire a burst to warn civilian vehicles from getting too close. Barely a day goes by when some report of a suicide bomber does not make the headlines.

This charge against Lt. Pantano needs to be dropped and the sooner the better. Pursuing the charge would put every other Marine and soldier at even greater risk as they must make a split-second decision between defending themselves or facing a possible trial. The Lieutenant was and is no rogue officer. He’s the kind of man we hope will lead our troops in battle.

Defending him is going to cost his family a lot of money. If you want to help, visit www.defendthedefenders.org.

Note to Ilario's mother: Faremo tutti noi latta per sostenere il vostro figlio e quello questo travesty è concluso rapidamente! - Sailor

About the Writer: Alan Caruba writes "Warning Signs," a weekly commentary posted on http://www.anxietycenter.com/, the website of The National Anxiety Center.

Syria and its friends buckle under pressure

Some additional information on the move towards democracy in the Middle east and the buckling of the repressive Syrian regime. - Sailor

Syria and its friends buckle under pressure

Feb 28th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
Source


Under growing pressure over its occupation of Lebanon and its alleged involvement in a suicide-bombing in Israel, Syria has handed over a half-brother of Saddam Hussein, suspected of fomenting Iraq’s insurgency from Syria. Lebanon's Syrian-backed government has resigned on a day of big protests in Beirut.

Reuters

Celebrating the fall of Syria's puppets




SYRIA has adamantly denied any responsibility over a suicide-bombing that killed five people in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv at the weekend—just as it has adamantly denied being behind the assassination earlier this month of Rafik al-Hariri, Lebanon’s main opposition leader, who had called for Syria to withdraw its troops from his country. But many Lebanese, the Israelis, and even, it appears, the Palestinian leadership, do not believe Syria’s protestations of innocence.

On Monday February 28th, as Israel summoned foreign ambassadors to present what it said was evidence that Syrian-backed Hizbullah militants were behind the Tel Aviv bombing, thousands of Lebanese staged anti-Syrian protests in the streets of Beirut—defying an official ban. As Lebanese parliamentarians debated a motion of no confidence in the country's pro-Syrian administration, the prime minister, Omar Karami, interrupted the proceedings to announce that his government was resigning, to avoid becoming “an obstacle to the good of the country”. This surprise announcement was not the only sign in the past few days that the pressure on Syria and its allies is beginning to bear fruit: at the weekend, Iraqi officials said that the Syrian regime had handed over to them a fugitive half-brother of Saddam Hussein.

Syria helped to put an end to Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war but, under the Taif accord that ended the war, its soldiers were supposed to leave eventually. Since 2001 the Syrian regime has reduced its troop numbers from 40,000 to 14,000 but it has shown no inclination to withdraw the rest. It has also continued to pull the strings in its smaller neighbour’s politics.

Despite their deep disagreements over Iraq, Presidents George Bush and Jacques Chirac are agreed that the Syrian occupation of Lebanon must end. They were the prime movers behind UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed last September, which orders all foreign troops out of Lebanon. Anti-Syrian sentiment among the Lebanese had been hardening even before the murder of Hariri, who had turned against Syria and had looked set to make a comeback as prime minister in Lebanon’s forthcoming elections. Whether or not Syria connived in his killing, it has led to a further intensifying of the international and domestic pressure to pull out its soldiers. The UN’s secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has urged Syria to remove its troops by April. Last week the Syrians said they would implement the withdrawal under the Taif accord but were unclear about when.

Many Lebanese have launched what they are calling a “peaceful intifada” to push the Syrians out. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the country's Druze minority, cheered the downfall of the pro-Syrian government, saying the “people have won”. Other opposition leaders said that protests would continue until Syria withdrew its troops. Lebanon’s own armed forces, though present on the streets during Monday’s demonstration, notably made little effort to enforce the ban on protests, though some demonstrators were turned back at checkpoints.

Besides demanding the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the UN’s resolution calls for the disarming of all private militias in the country. In fact, Hizbullah is the only such militia still under arms. From its southern Lebanese base, the group, which is backed by Iran as well as Syria, occasionally launches attacks on northern Israel. Since the start of a tentative Israeli-Palestinian truce in January, there have been fears that Hizbullah was seeking to recruit suicide-bombers to attack Israel. The man believed to have committed Friday’s bombing in Tel Aviv was from a faction of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian group whose leaders are based in Syria’s capital, Damascus. But Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), has said that a “third party”—an apparent reference to Hizbullah—was behind the attack.

The Tel Aviv bombing is the most serious in a series of violent incidents that have tested the Israeli-Palestinian truce since it was formalised in a summit in early February between Mr Abbas and Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister. In recent days, Israel has praised the PA for its efforts to improve security, such as by closing several arms-smuggling tunnels that run under the border between Egypt and the Gaza strip. However, after the bombing, Israel criticised Mr Abbas for failing to disarm militant groups. So far, the Palestinian leader has opted for negotiating with the militants rather than attempt a crackdown against groups that enjoy a high level of popular support, with PA security forces that are still woefully inadequate.

While Israel may be inclined to show the Palestinian leadership a certain amount of patience, it may not be so tolerant towards Syria and the militant groups it harbours on its soil. Only 16 months ago, the Israeli airforce bombed a Palestinian refugee camp just 14 miles from the Syrian capital, claiming that Islamic Jihad was training terrorists there. After last weekend’s Tel Aviv bombing, Israel’s deputy defence minister, Zeev Boim, said it was “certainly possible” that Israel could strike at Syria again.

Israel would probably seek a tacit nod from America before launching any fresh attack. In an interview in Italy’s La Repubblica on Monday, Syria’s President Bashir Assad said he fears America itself is also gearing up for an attack on his country. A few days earlier, Mr Assad had told Turkey’s Hurriyet that he wanted direct talks with the Bush administration to ease tensions between the two countries.

Perhaps in an attempt to stave off either a direct American attack or American-backed Israeli reprisals, the Syrian regime appears to have assisted in the Iraqi forces’ arrest over the weekend of Saddam’s half-brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hasan al-Tikriti, who is suspected of having directed the Iraqi insurgency from Syria. Some reports said the Syrians arrested Mr Sabawi and handed him over to the Iraqis, others that he was detained inside Iraq, along with a group of insurgents. Mr Assad’s government was recently presented by the Iraqis with a list of insurgents, suspected of hiding in Syria, that they want handed over. If the fear of American-backed military action is now forcing Mr Assad to be more helpful, the Iraqis’ attempts to round up the ringleaders of the insurgency should receive a welcome boost.

The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled

First the leftists said we would have to co-exist with the old Soviet Union. There was nothing we could do, so we had better get used to it. Then the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union along with it. Then the leftists got all hand wringy and whiney about the Middle East. There was nothing that could be done there either. The toppling of saddam was a bad thing. Democracy could not flourish there. Then the Iraqi people, 8 million of them defying death threats and bombings voted. The silence of the leftists is deafening. Egypt and Syria may be seeing the light. Mark Steyn explains. - Sailor

The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 01/03/2005)
SOURCE

Three years ago - April 6 2002, if you want to rummage through the old Spectators in the attic - I wrote: "The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable. So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've got rid of the ruling gang, it's the West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."

I don't like to say I told you so. But, actually, I do like to say I told you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so. But nevertheless I did.

Consider just the past couple of days' news: not the ever more desperate depravity of the floundering "insurgency", but the real popular Arab resistance the car-bombers and the head-hackers are flailing against: the Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi election. "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I think women are more sensible voters than men."

Four-time Egyptian election winner - and with 90 per cent of the vote! - President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy". The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as a "historical decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy". After 7,000 years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move is, as they say, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harbouring any refugee Saddamites, suddenly discovered that - wouldja believe it? - Saddam's brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Baathists were holed up in north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

No disrespect to Associated Press, but I was disinclined to take their word for it. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has done an invaluable job these past three years presenting the ugly truth about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the pile of Jew corpses - and, to his surprise, couldn't find any.

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30. Don't take my word for it, listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader and a man of impeccable anti-American credentials: "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen."

Just so. Left to their own devices, the House of Saud - which demanded all US female air-traffic controllers be stood down for Crown Prince Abdullah's flight to the Bush ranch in Crawford - would stick to their traditional line that Wahhabi women have no place in a voting booth; instead, they have to dress like a voting booth - a big black impenetrable curtain with a little slot to drop your ballot through. Likewise, Hosni Mubarak has no desire to take part in campaign debates with Hosno Name-Recognition. Boy Assad has no desire to hand over his co-Baathists to the Great Satan's puppets in Baghdad.

But none of them has much of a choice. In the space of a month, the Iraq election has become the prism through which all other events in the region are seen.

Assad's regime knocks off a troublemaker in Lebanon. Big deal. They've done it a gazillion times. But this time the streets are full of demonstrators demanding an end to Syrian occupation.

A suicide bomber kills four Jews. So what's new? But this time the Palestinians decline to celebrate. And some even question whether being a delivery system for plastic explosives is really all life has to offer, even on the West Bank.

Mubarak announces the arrest of an opposition leader. Like, who cares? The jails are full of 'em. But this time Condi Rice cancels her visit and the Egyptian government notices that its annual cheque from Washington is a month late.

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.

But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz - thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the dunce's corner of history by far too many British Tories. No surprise there. The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Iranian people, etc.

Prof Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratisation is a process, not an event". Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle East is the start of a long-delayed process. Eight million Iraqis did more for the Arab world on January 30 than 7,000 years of Mubarak-pace marching.